[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#585767: marked as done (Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match armel or powerpcspe correctly)

Your message dated Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:51:21 +0000
with message-id <[🔎] E1S9wev-0003CY-SG@franck.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#649234: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #585767,
regarding Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match armel or powerpcspe correctly
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
585767: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585767
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.15.7.2
Severity: important
User: debian-powerpcspe@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe

I'm actually a little unsure if this is a dpkg bug or a package bug, but
I have had build failures from several packages which have Build-Depends
like the following: (trimmed example from the gvfs-1.6.2-1 source package)

  libudev-dev (>= 0.139) | not+linux-gnu,
  libfuse-dev | hurd,
  libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) | linux-gnu,
  libgdu-dev (>= 2.29.0) | not+linux-gnu,
  libgudev-1.0-dev (>= 001) | not+linux-gnu,
  libbluetooth-dev (>= 4.0) | not+linux-gnu,
  libimobiledevice-dev (>= 0.9.7) | hurd

Unfortunately it seems like the "powerpcspe" and "armel" architectures
do not provide the virtual packages "linux-gnu" and they do provide the
virtual package "not+linux-gnu", although if I change those deps to
"linux" and "not+linux" then they behave as expected.

This seems to be related to the fact that the triplettable entries for
those architectures map them as "linux-gnuspe" and "linux-gnueabi"
respectively, instead of "linux-gnu".

On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain those package dependencies
are compliant with current Debian Policy.  I believe those package
dependencies should be written as follows:

  libudev-dev (>= 0.139) [linux-any],
  libfuse-dev [!hurd-any],
  libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) [!linux-any],
  libgdu-dev (>= 2.29.0) [linux-any],
  libgudev-1.0-dev (>= 001) [linux-any],
  libbluetooth-dev (>= 4.0) [linux-any],
  libimobiledevice-dev (>= 0.97) [!hurd-any]

So I guess the question is whether the "linux-gnu" vs. "not+linux-gnu"
behavior is correct, or alternatively whether or not it violates policy.

If the latter, perhaps dpkg-buildpackage should be patched to issue very
loud warnings when those dependencies are detected as they are known to
have incorrect behaviour on some platforms.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 0.2.23+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package type-handling has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see http://bugs.debian.org/649234

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Luca Falavigna (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---
Reply to: